It was sad to see the ridiculous recriminations of Mr King printed in last week’s News & Mail.

Here is a man clearly so bitter, having lost his fight to prevent any development on the old Oatlands Park Cricket Ground site, that he now can only attack we local councillors with a litany of inaccuracies and rubbish in order to hide the pretty awful gaffe he and his supporters have inflicted on Oatlands residents.

The local Conservative councillors have supported one scheme and one scheme only and that was for eight houses. This application was supported because it was for a small number of units and released about two-thirds of the site to the council, with a very generous Section 106 agreement. We estimate that the details of the latter were worth possibly as much as £400,000 in inward investment for Oatlands residents, although the council had not finally agreed any numbers with Cala.

Notwithstanding, we considered that the balance of benefits to the community with the acceptance of eight houses would have been a good overall result.

We agree that fewer than eight houses is good, too – but were very conscious that there would be a cost. The Section 106 would be substantially less generous, not least because Cala would make less money on the deal and, therefore, there would be less money to spread around.

The consequences of reducing the house numbers and the resulting loss of benefits were spelled out in detail by Cllr Roy Taylor in the full council meeting in April last year. Regrettably, this Resident and Independent administration seemed to be blinded by Mr King’s arguments and various government guidelines rather than weighing up the sensible practicalities of what was on offer.

We local councillors rejected the six-house scheme purely on the basis that six houses could be better positioned on the Ashley Park side of the site, causing minimal interference to anybody (where now they actually unnecessarily completely ruin the outlook for those residents in the Paddocks). The shape of the resulting land to be handed to council would also have been better.

Even though the highways department would likely permit access from Cricket Way for the repositioned six houses, Cala refused to consider repositioning them. In any event, the Mr King-organised campaign that has been consistent in opposing all development whatever, probably proved to be a major stumbling block in Cala’s resistance to submitting yet another application.

As soon as any application goes to appeal, the council loses all rights of negotiation in respect to a Section 106 agreement and is at the mercy of the inspector as to what may be granted.

At the appeal, the inspector allowed the six-house application to proceed and conditioned Cala to hand over the undeveloped land suitably landscaped with play areas, two tennis courts and a refurbished pavilion. There is no cash payment to the council to maintain these facilities (as there would have been with a negotiated settlement) and the ongoing maintenance costs may have to be met by the council (ie ratepayers).

We estimate the cost of the unilateral undertaking imposed by the inspector is possibly worth between £50,000 and £70,000 excluding the pavilion. Despite this, we are extremely pleased to note that Cala are in negotiations with EBC to hand over a commuted sum to assist with the maintenance of the land, structures and equipment.

There is no agreement at the moment but we have the utmost confidence in officers in concluding a reasonable deal. Contrary to assertions by others, Oatlands councillors have not held any meetings with Cala.

The merits of keeping the pavilion are well aired and would be desirable if some organisation would come forward to use and maintain it. But there are other additional details to consider if it is to be retained.

For example, we shall almost certainly have to make a vehicle access way to it, plus some parking spaces (if only for unloading/loading, general servicing, etc) – all of which will reduce the actual amount of ground intended for “green” areas. If this is a fact, then it is not clear who will pay for the access and parking spaces.

It is interesting to note that retention of the pavilion plus an access, plus six houses actually consumes much the same area of the site as the eight-house scheme.

If it is agreed that the pavilion ought to be demolished, Cala have offered the difference in costs, ie costs to refurbish less demolition, clearance and subsequent landscaping, this being £25,000 as a cash donation for which we would wish to use elsewhere in Oatlands. £25,000 is probably a little light but, again, the council has no real negotiating muscle. Cala can simply offer a “take it or leave it”scenario if they so wish. We have no doubt that officers will conduct negotiations to secure the best deal they can.

This current situation and the weak negotiating position EBC now finds itself can only be laid at Mr King’s feet (sadly and misguidedly supported by Resident and Independent councillors from elsewhere in the borough) and residents will make their own minds up as to whether this is the best and most practical result for Oatlands — and who should carry the blame if they conclude that it isn’t.